Legal Opinion

Miller v. Henderson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1984No. 842SC168PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HILL, Judge.

Although not raised by defendant appellees, the first issue we must address is whether plaintiffs appeal is premature. Since the orders appealed from adjudicated the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties and did not contain a certification by the trial court pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b), that there was “no just reason for delay,” plaintiffs appeal is premature unless the orders affected a substantial right and will work an injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment. G.S. 1-277, 7A-27(d); Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. Bernick v. JurdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hudson-Cole Development Corp. v. BeemerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Frost v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  3. H.B.S. Contractors, Inc. v. Cumberland County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. Estes v. North Carolina State UniversityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. In re J.G.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API